Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Acceptability is an amorphous concept, being both highly subjective and circumstantial; a thing may be acceptable to one evaluator and unacceptable to another, or unacceptable for one purpose but acceptable for another. Furthermore, acceptability is not necessarily a logical or consistent exercise.
The goal of acceptability rating studies is to gather insights into the mental grammars of participants. As the grammaticality of a linguistic construction is an abstract construct that cannot be accessed directly, this type of tasks is usually not called grammaticality, but acceptability judgment. This can be compared to intelligence.
Valid argument; the premises entail the conclusion. (This does not mean the conclusion has to be true; it is only true if the premises are true, which they may not be!) Some men are hawkers. Some hawkers are rich. Therefore, some men are rich. Invalid argument. This can be more easily seen by giving a counter-example with the same argument form:
Hence, according to Sprouse, the difference between grammaticality and acceptability is that grammatical knowledge is categorical, but acceptability is a gradient scale. [9] Linguists may use words, numbers, or typographical symbols such as
Writing a closed letter 'O' means that you are a private person and an introvert. If the dot on your 'i' lands high above the letter, you are considered to be imaginative.
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has written about some various factors which limit the acceptability of text in articles. In September 2011, he wrote: (in User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, 1 September 2011, link: diff-3527) Here is a story for consideration.
Acceptance is a core element of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). In this context, acceptance is a process that involves actively contacting psychological internal experiences (emotions, sensations, urges, flashbacks, and other private events) directly, fully, without reacting or becoming defensive.
According to Raud, this model is complementary to a model of cultural practices, in which the production, distribution and transmission of meaning is regarded in the context of individual participation and activity, while a textuality is necessarily shared and perceived by its carriers to be an objective, albeit constructed, reality.